Date of Conferral

1-1-2011

Degree

Doctor of Business Administration (D.B.A.)

School

Management

Advisor

John House

Abstract

From 1996 to 2006, the number of Department of Defense (DoD) contract transactions increased, leading to over expenditures and the need for agencies to determine benefit estimation to improve risk management of a project. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to apply a total quality management theory to explore if a standardized versus decentralized benefits framework within the cost benefit analysis process could improve the Department of the Army acquisition selection process. The two central research questions addressed (a) the differences between successful and failed acquisition systems cost benefit analysis, and (b) whether a standardized or decentralized cost benefits framework would best serve contract selection process. Data were collected via interviews with 20 DoD acquisition specialists and analysis of cost benefit analysis cases; NVIVO software was used to examine word frequency and comparative phrases. The data analysis resulted in themes that encompassed how standardization improves product quality, enhances innovation, and accelerates the acquisition procurement process. Other themes included the need to build metrics into the cost benefit assessment to measure risk management controls and cost-reduction initiatives. The DoD might benefit from the results of this study by reviewing and instituting a standardized benefit assessment within its cost benefit analysis framework to protect business stakeholders' from fraud, waste, or abuse. The implications of this doctoral study will promote social change in the form of government spending fiscal stewardship and could serve as a benchmark to improve the budget formulation and management of the American taxpayer's investment in national security.